On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 4:01:01 PM UTC-6, Goktug Gokdogan wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Ming-Yee Iu <ji...@jinq.org <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Well, ok. Thanks. >> >> Just in terms of general feedback on Elemental2: >> >> 1. I'm not sure whether the conversion of JavaScript properties to Java >> fields is the best choice. Sure, it "feels" more like the original >> JavaScript, but >> > > >> a) it's inconsistent with Java semantics, >> > > This could be a stylistic inconsistency not a semantic one. All arguments > that I have seen in favor for having accessors instead of fields are > inapplicable to Elemental fields since they all assume changes in the > implementation of accessors which in our case always a pass through. > > However I am aware of the stylistic expectation from some java devs and we > might end up providing setter/getter as overlays for people who would like > to stick conventional style. > > There are also a variety of tools that assume methods rather than fields - uibinder, cssresource, editors all made assumptions about turning dot notation into getters (and in the case of editors, setters), and did not support fields at all as far as I'm aware. This is true of most (though not all) codegen tools I've worked with since as well.
Another advantage: You can't turn a field into a method-reference. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/fc44ca94-13d0-4dcd-b3a3-a4098f09a973%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
